Hill v. Palmer et al

Filing 56

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing 33 is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jeffrey S. Blanck, Esq., 485 West Fifth Street, Reno, NV, 89501, is hereby APPOINTE D to represent the petitioner herein. Jeffrey S. Blanck, Esq., is a CJA panel attorney for the United States District Court, District of Nevada. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CJA counsel for petitioner shall meet with petitioner as soon as re asonably possible to: (a) review the procedures applicable in cases under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254;(b) discuss and explore with petitioner, as fully as possible, the potential grounds for habeas corpus relief in petitioner's case; and (c) advise p etitioner that all possible grounds for habeas corpus relief must be raised at this time and that the failure to do so will likely result in the omitted grounds being barred from future review under the rules regarding abuse of writ.IT IS F URTHER ORDERED that after Jeffrey S. Blanck, Esq. has appeared for petitioner in this case, he shall file a response to the court's order to show cause issued January 27, 2011, within (90) ninety days from the date of his appearance.< /P>IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days from the date of service of the response within which to file a reply.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any state court record exhibits filed by petitio ner or respondents shall be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number or letter. The CM/ECF attachments that are filed further shall be identified by the number or numbers (or letteror letters) of the exhibits in the attachment. The hard copy of any additional state court record exhibits shall be forwarded for this case to the staff attorneys in Reno.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion to supplement the record 46 is GRANT ED. The clerk shall DETACH the remittitur and file it separately as "Supplemental Exhibit to Petition."IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motions for his former attorney to send him his file and case docum ents 47 55 are DENIED. However, petitioner's former attorney, Debra Bookout, Esq. shall RETAIN petitioner's file so that alternate counsel may obtain it in the future, if necessary. The clerk shall send a copy of this orde r to Debra Bookout, Esq., Federal Public Defender, 411 E. Bonneville, Suite 250, Las Vegas, NV 89101. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion to correct a typographical error 53 is GRANTED. The court considers petit ioner's motion for stay as arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for contempt of court order, motion for the court to dismiss respondents' reply, and motion to stay 48 , 50 , 52 are DENIED. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr. on 8/23/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HJ).

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6

CHARLES H. HILL,

7

Petitioner,

8

vs.

9

JACK PALMER, et al.,

10

Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
/

3:11-cv-00048-ECR-VPC
ORDER

11
12

This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which petitioner, a

13

state prisoner, is proceeding pro se. On January 27, 2011, the court ordered petitioner to show cause

14

why his petition should not be dismissed as untimely. (ECF No. 7.) After reviewing petitioner’s

15

response, and in light of petitioner’s history of mental illness, the court appointed the Federal Public

16

Defender for the District of Nevada (FPD) to represent petitioner. (ECF No. 20.) Subsequently, through

17

counsel, petitioner filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss his petition based on the probabilities of

18

overcoming the procedural and timeliness problems in this case. (ECF No. 30.) After that filing,

19

petitioner filed several documents in pro se stating, among other things, that he did not wish to dismiss

20

his petition, requesting that the court appoint counsel other than the FPD to represent him, requesting

21

an evidentiary hearing, and requesting the production of documents. (ECF Nos. 31, 32, 33, 38.) On

22

January 4, 2012, the court issued an order that, among other things, relieved the FPD as counsel, denied

23

petitioner’s request for alternate counsel, and allowed petitioner an opportunity to file pro se briefing

24

to address the timeliness of his petition. (ECF No. 40.) Since that time, petitioner has submitted several

25

motions.

26

Having reviewed the papers submitted by the parties, the court concludes that although an

1

evidentiary hearing does not appear warranted at this time, because of petitioner’s representations that

2

he continues to suffer from periods of extreme mental illness, and in light of the potential complexities

3

of this case, the court sua sponte appoints alternate counsel to facilitate the full and fair adjudication of

4

this matter.

5
6

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing (ECF No.
33) is DENIED without prejudice.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jeffrey S. Blanck, Esq., 485 West Fifth Street, Reno, NV,

8

89501, is hereby APPOINTED to represent the petitioner herein. Jeffrey S. Blanck, Esq., is a Criminal

9

Justice Act panel attorney for the United States District Court, District of Nevada. Mr. Blanck shall

10

represent petitioner in all future proceedings in this court relating to this matter (including subsequent

11

actions) and appeals therefrom, pursuant to 18. U.S.C. Section 3006A (a)(2)(B), until allowed to

12

withdraw. Counsel for respondents should make available to counsel for petitioner (photocopying costs

13

at the latter’s expense), as soon as reasonably possible, a copy of whatever portions of the state court

14

record they possess regarding the judgment petitioner is challenging herein.

15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CJA counsel for petitioner shall meet with petitioner as soon

16

as reasonably possible to: (a) review the procedures applicable in cases under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254;

17

(b) discuss and explore with petitioner, as fully as possible, the potential grounds for habeas corpus relief

18

in petitioner's case; and (c) advise petitioner that all possible grounds for habeas corpus relief must be

19

raised at this time and that the failure to do so will likely result in the omitted grounds being barred from

20

future review under the rules regarding abuse of writ.

21

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that after Jeffrey S. Blanck, Esq. has appeared for petitioner in

22

this case, he shall file a response to the court’s order to show cause issued January 27, 2011, within (90)

23

ninety days from the date of his appearance.

24
25

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days from the date
of service of the response within which to file a reply.

26
-2-

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any state court record exhibits filed by petitioner or

2

respondents shall be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number or letter.

3

The CM/ECF attachments that are filed further shall be identified by the number or numbers (or letter

4

or letters) of the exhibits in the attachment. The hard copy of any additional state court record

5

exhibits shall be forwarded – for this case – to the staff attorneys in Reno.

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to supplement the record with the

7

remittitur of the Nevada Supreme Court (ECF No. 46) is GRANTED. The clerk shall DETACH the

8

remittitur and file it separately as “Supplemental Exhibit to Petition.”

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motions for his former attorney to send him his

10

file and case documents (ECF Nos. 47, 55) are DENIED. However, petitioner’s former attorney, Debra

11

Bookout, Esq. shall RETAIN petitioner’s file so that alternate counsel may obtain it in the future, if

12

necessary. The clerk shall send a copy of this order to Debra Bookout, Esq., Federal Public Defender,

13

411 E. Bonneville, Suite 250, Las Vegas, NV 89101.

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to correct a typographical error (ECF

15

No. 53) is GRANTED. The court considers petitioner’s motion for stay as arising under 28 U.S.C. §

16

2254.

17
18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for contempt of court order, motion for
the court to dismiss respondents’ reply, and motion to stay (ECF Nos. 48, 50, 52) are DENIED.

19
20
21

Dated this 23rd day of August, 2012.

22
23

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
-3-